Britain’s honours system is broken, and the way we grant titles and privileges to individuals that needs fundamental reform. We don’t place enough responsibility on those who enjoy the privileges of an honour from the state: it comes with many perks, but not enough prohibitions.

This simply isn’t true. Business leaders enjoy the same inalienable rights as the rest of us to buy and sell property on the basis of laws, not on the basis of what is “right” in some arbitrary sense to be determined by angry petitioning MPs. Where Mr Fuller has a stronger point is his questioning of Sir Philip’s actions in the context of his honour: "Were the actions of Sir Philip honourable?” the MP has asked, explaining: “That is pertinent, because he received his honour for services to retail."

Pertinent it may be, and the honours committee may yet recommend that Sir Philip loses his honour, but they won’t determine that on the basis of any transparent or straightforward code of conduct. In 1994 Sir John Major articulated the process for removing honours. Over two decades later, it remains the same:

“The statutes of most orders of knighthood and the royal warrants of decorations and medals include provision for the Queen to 'cancel and annul' appointments and awards. Cancellation is considered in cases where retention of the appointment or award would bring the honours system into disrepute. There are no set guidelines for cancellations, which are considered on a case-by-case basis.”

An honour can be forfeited if the recipient is sentenced to prison for at least 3 months for a criminal offence, as the economist Vicky Pryce discovered when she lost her Companionship of the Order of the Bath for accepting her then-husband’s points for speeding. But beyond that the rules are vague to non-existent. The Honours Forfeiture Committee considers cases for the removal of honours, and their discussions are completely confidential. Since the members of the committee are all unelected officials with gongs themselves, there is little reason to expect greater transparency any time soon.

With the addition of Baroness Chakrabarti and some of David Cameron’s pals, our 812-seat upper house remains comfortably the largest parliamentary chamber of any democracy in the world, and is only behind China’s National People’s Congress in size. It is bad enough that the House of Lords is filled with donors and journeymen politicians, but were it not for his voluntary resignation, it would also contain men like John Buttifant Sewel. Baron Sewel filmed wearing an orange bra and leather jacket while snorting white powder in the company of prostitutes. Despite the immense status and privilege given to peers, there is no effective mechanism to remove them.

Like the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama, a man responsible for over 100 civilian deaths from drone strikes, Sir Philip’s case reflects the dangers of giving a lifetime honour to someone who may go on to commit acts which reflect awkwardly on the award. Peerages and knighthoods attract not just a title, but special privileges such as dinners, and the use of some of the country’s most exclusive chapels. We currently bestow these privileges with a weak, opaque, and ineffective framework to rescind them.

In the giving of honours, and in the policing of them, we have lost any sense of what a Lord or Knight should be. If we are to retain our honours system as a way to denote those among us who are worthy of greater respect and admiration, then it is only sensible and fair that we hold them to a higher standard. A modern set of chivalric commandments against sharp practices, duplicity in public life and dishonourable conduct should be drawn up and enforced.

If you think that such a code would be impossible to draft, then what is the point of stripping Sir Philip of his knighthood? If we cannot define a modern concept of chivalry, then our honours system is surely meaningless.